[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: Suspension of Certain Combat Arrows

Poster: Julien de Montfort <julien@spiaggia.org>

> > Imagine
> > if, as a result of a broken wrist at event X, swords were suspended
> > from use until the Earl Marshal did more testing on them?
> This sword didn't misws someone's eye by two inches and it didn't
> a cut that could have been a gash.  Secondly, as much as we have used
> this weapon, it doesn't have 30 years of use and anecdotal evidence
> behind it.

My point was that is it appropriate to take a weapons form that has
been deemed acceptable at Society level and also at Kingdom level and
has been extensively tested in both controlled situations and also on
the field or several years, and to suspend that weapon at the first
injury that occurs?  In my estimation, no.  Of course, I ain't the KAM,
so that doesn't amount to much beyond my opinion and what that's worth.

All weapons approved for use in heavy combat can be said to have an
'acceptable injury' ratio.  In Atlantia, we feel that 7.5-foot unpadded
polearms have too high an injury ratio to allow thier use here.  The
East Kingdom, on the other hand, does not see it so and allows them.
The Society, however, does not disallow them and so they are still
legal if we wanted to adopt them at a later date.

Up until this point, Atlantia has felt that Baldar Blunts have a low
enough injury ratio to allow their use.  My personal dismay was that
the item was apparently pulled from use at the first recorded incident
of injury, as if it was never expected that they could or would ever
cause an injury.  If there was a sudden rash of injuries, yes, I can
see the concern, but not as a result of a single incident.  I still
feel my original analogy is appropriate.

Yes, archery in general and Baldar Blunts in particular have not had as
many years total of in-use experience and anecdotal evidence as swords
and other heavy weapons.  But what it does have (and it's not
insubstantial) appears to indicate that, in general, they are probably
*safer* than heavy melee weapons -- i.e, fewer injuries per use.  I'd
rather have a cut on my cheek than a broken wrist.  Whether I'd rather
lose an eye from a bounceback or suffer permanent disability to a limb
via a polearm shot is a little more of a tricky question, but I feel
that the probability of either of those two drastic occurences
happening is so low (and both comparable to each other) as to not be
enough to keep me off the field.


DISCLAIMER: I am expressing my opinion on what information has been
presented to me.  If somebody has some data that refutes my
assumptions, I'd be more than happy to hear them.

Seigneur Julien de Montfort                  De sable, seme d'hermines
"Solum Dice Nullus Sunt Suficio"             d'or, tres amphorae et un
Seneschal, Web Minister, pursuivant@large        caid palissade argent
Canton de Spiaggia Levantina                   http://www.spiaggia.org
Bright Hills, Atlantia                             julien@spiaggia.org
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://merryrose.atlantia.sca.org/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org